> marc fleury wrote:
> > I do still believe that JMX will take care of the calls.
> Never do I say
> > that our core services shouldn't be MBeans. They MUST be
> MBeans if anything
> > because the MLet mechanisms is really what is cool.
>
> Or at least the MLet-ish mechanism, now that we primarily use the
> Configuration MBean to instantiate MBeans.
I won't skip the MLet service or JMX for the JBoss server inter-
component communication. But I think it is not the right tool for
the App. Server Admin Console.
> > |- navigation through the server service trees (WAS and WL display
> > | its services as a tree)
> >
> > Yes yes yes,
>
> Although, how do we get this tree? The MBeans are a set, not a tree.
> It's not JNDI we are talking about here.
ATTENTION: I am not speaking about MBean to manage because they are
App. Server implementation specific. An in addition EJBs are not MBeans
but for sure must be manageable by an Admin Console.
Both big competitors to JBoss uses a tree to visualize their components
and I think this is a good idea (EJBs belongs to a EJB Container and
maybe we have more than one EJB Container).
At the moment in JBoss the MBeans only offers a bear management interface.
> > |- I would suggest RMI as a transport protocol
> >
> > yes as a first cut but we are aware of its limitations.
>
> For admin it is perfectly ok. Are there any limitations of RMI/JRMP
> (note: RMI is *NOT* a transport protocol) that are relevant re: admin?
>From a JMX Connector or an admin console how would you name RMI?
Have fun - Andy
